Chris Paxton

Chris Paxton ✓ @chris_j_paxton · 20m
AGI fundamentally means "can it do my job?" to most people, and the only people (broadly) who think it is going to do their jobs soon are AI researchers

[quoted tweet]
Nabeel S. Qureshi ✓ @nabeelqu · 20h
Very true: we have AIs that can play chess, prove theorems, create art, and write award-winning short stories, but few people feel that current AI counts as "AGI". (From Scott Alexander.)

[embedded/highlighted excerpt]
...still can't do miracles. Still, this is a good time to reread my post [Sakana, Strawberry, and Scary AI]. In the past, we thought "AGI" would "be here" when AIs could play chess, prove novel mathematical theorems, create art, or write award-winning short stories; now all those things have happened, but they feel sort of like "cheating" and like they shouldn't count. Likewise, in the past, we thought we'd agree that AI was "dangerous" after it hacked out of its sandbox, lied to users, or tried to escape monitoring. Again all those things have happened; again, they somehow feel too cheap. This paper seems like the same process coming for "superpersuasion". We thought there would be some cool scary high-tech future where AIs could outpersuade humans. Now that it's happened, it's only happening for some specific boring reason, in some specific situation, so it feels like it shouldn't count.

3 replies, 4 likes, 480 views

Bogdan Ionut Cirs... @BogdanIonut... · 6m
the time horizons in the vast majority of domains are still too low, especially at high reliability; once this changes, e.g. contract work could be impacted very quickly

agiai riskscott alexandertwitter

llmsai-criticismpublic-perceptiontwitterblueskyallegory